News

The case of Zhang (alias), represented by Partner Li Zonglin of Jialu Law Firm, who was suspected of fraud, was reviewed by the People's Procuratorate of a district in Beijing. Ultimately, a decision not to prosecute was made on the grounds of ‘unclear facts and insufficient evidence’. This case accurately grasped the constituent elements of the crime of fraud, clearly delineated the boundary between private lending and fraudulent offences, and effectively safeguarded the client's lawful rights and interests as well as his status as a public official.

01 Case Summary: Client Detained at Workplace and Coerced into Confession

Mr Zhang (pseudonym), a civil servant (Section Chief) at a Beijing government agency, was publicly detained by police at his workplace on suspicion of defrauding Mr Wang (pseudonym) of RMB 400,000. Mr Wang alleged Mr Zhang had obtained substantial sums under false pretences by promising to facilitate official matters. After Zhang's wife returned the disputed funds, she proceeded with divorce proceedings. Deeply aggrieved and facing immense pressure as a middle-aged man who had lost his public office, Zhang sought to clear his name and restore his family. Upon the case entering the review and prosecution stage, he appointed solicitor Li Zonglin as his defence counsel.

Upon taking the case, Zhang informed solicitor Li: During the police investigation phase, his interrogation records contained statements highly detrimental to his case. This primarily stemmed from coercive interrogation tactics employed by investigators. When faced with questions he could not answer, officers offered suggestions under the guise of concern, leading him to mistakenly believe that a cooperative attitude would suffice. This misguided belief resulted in the incriminating statements. Confronted with this grave situation, Lawyer Li Zonglin meticulously examined the case details and actively pursued a defence strategy.

02 Defence Strategy: Reconstructing the Evidence Framework to Restore the Substance of the Loan

The following day after accepting the mandate, Attorney Li visited the Procuratorate to comprehensively review the case files and engaged in multiple in-depth discussions with the client to reconstruct the full picture of the case. Through meticulous examination of the case materials and thorough understanding of the case background, Attorney Li recognised that the key to proving the client's innocence lay in reconstructing the evidence framework to challenge the victim's factual statements.

Attorney Li submitted detailed defence arguments to the prosecution, establishing a new evidentiary framework to mount a not-guilty defence on three fronts:

The legal relationship was fundamentally a loan, not fraud: The victim, Mr Wang, was a high-interest lender, and the 400,000 yuan involved represented the principal of a high-interest loan. When reporting the case, Mr Wang concealed his identity as a high-interest lender and failed to disclose that the money he gave to Mr Zhang carried substantial interest and that he had already received an upfront interest payment.

No fabrication of identity or false promises: The defendant did not commit fraud. Evidence including WeChat chat records demonstrates that Zhang did not fabricate his identity or make false promises. He merely provided advice on lawful policies and expressed scepticism regarding Wang's requests that contravened regulations.

No intent to unlawfully appropriate funds: The defendant consistently expressed a clear willingness to repay, citing objective reasons for delayed payments (such as cash flow issues), never evaded debt obligations, and even proactively disclosed his workplace address. As a senior public official with stable employment and substantial income, Zhang owned properties worth millions and held anticipated receivables, demonstrating full repayment capacity. He possessed neither the subjective motive nor objective necessity to defraud 400,000 yuan.

03 Case Outcome: Prosecution Adopts Defence Arguments

Counsel Li not only submitted comprehensive written defence submissions but also guided the client in gathering and presenting new evidence (such as property deeds and enforcement case materials) demonstrating his financial standing and repayment capacity. This rebuilt the case's evidentiary framework to substantiate the lending relationship, alongside multiple communications with the prosecuting attorney.

Following rigorous review and supplementary investigation, the prosecution ultimately accepted Attorney Li's defence arguments. The Procuratorate concluded: Based on the evidence on file, it could not be established that Zhang possessed the intent to illegally appropriate funds, nor had he engaged in evasive behaviour regarding repayment. Considering his willingness to repay and financial capacity, it was impossible to conclusively predict his inability to repay the loan. Therefore, the facts supporting the charge of fraud against Zhang were unclear and the evidence insufficient, leading to a legally grounded decision not to prosecute.

04 Lawyer's Commentary: Balancing Expertise and Timing

Attorney Li emphasised that the case hinged on precisely grasping the core element of fraud—the intent to illegally appropriate property—and successfully employing evidence to restore the legal essence of the private lending relationship. Even when faced with the disadvantage of the defendant having admitted guilt, the solicitor must persist in professional judgement and actively seek breakthroughs if facts and evidence genuinely support an acquittal. Timely intervention, comprehensive case file review, thorough communication, and precise defence were pivotal to this case's success.

This case also serves as a renewed cautionary tale regarding the prudent approach to high-risk economic activities such as usurious lending. Zhang encountered liquidity difficulties after lending personal funds to a friend. Out of concern for his reputation, he refrained from seeking assistance from relatives or friends and instead turned to usurious lenders, subsequently incurring criminal liability. Although the case ultimately resulted in an acquittal, his standing within his organisation and his family relationships have been adversely affected.